5 ms·

I didn't read the entire paper, but to someone who did, how much of a link is there between genetics and IQ? I know this isn't a popular subject, but if I reme

I didn't read the entire paper, but to someone who did, how much of a link is there between genetics and IQ? I know this isn't a popular subject, but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. I would think that much like how different types of people from different regions have differing athletic capabilities, there would also be differences in mental facilities as well -- some better at music, some better at math, etc. Thoughts?

readme 14y ago
>but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. Can we get a citation on this?
- scott_s 14y ago
  "Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates Although this need not be explained by genetics. It could just as easily be explained by culture.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    It would be strange to assume uncritically that Nobel prizes were given out in a way which was completely unbiased. For example, it is at least highly plausible that there are biases on the basis of nationality, connections, school background and other things which have nothing to do with merit, ethnicity OR culture as such. So it seems strange to me to suggest that it must be some aspect of Jewishness that determines this difference.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      I'm actually not assuming that - I tried to write something to that effect, but I wasn't pleased with what I wrote. Take my comment with the pre-condition that if we're going to assume it has something to do with Jews themselves, it need not be attributed to genetics.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        Absolutely understood, and I apologize if that came across as a sharp rebuttal.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    @slurgfest Oh, I don't think anyone doubts that. The question we are discussing is: to what extent does their innate genetics (categories of similar DNA, if you prefer) influence their intelligence?
- psykotic 14y ago
  Page 3 of Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence: "During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions." http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub....
praptak 14y ago
Both scientific and athletic achievements have an alternative explanation: culture. If there was a good sample of adopted children from a group with such achievements, one could examine these hypotheses in more detail.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Right, but my question is for only the genetic effects (even with adopted children of different cultures there will be other differences that are not genetic). It would be difficult to determine, but there are enough statistical techniques that one could get a good idea. Surely different races can't have identical distributions of various "skills" -- the only question is how much they are offset from each other.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  These kind of studies have been done, and it is my recollection that genetics still appear to have a significant impact. Of course, people can still argue that various sociological effects can explain most of this, like lowered expectations for certain races, etc. Would love to see some cites.
- Juniper 14y ago
  That's an incredible statistic. If the cause is cultural then it's a wonder there isn't a plethora of books advising on how to raise children the Ashkenazi way. Are there any such books?
  - starpilot 14y ago
    Sort of. In achievement-obsessed South Korea, there's wide reverence for judaism and study of the Talmud, despite the country historically being very non-jewish. http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/48771/why-south-koreans-are-love-judaism http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/48771/why-...
  - Jach 14y ago
    While not completely the same or as limited in scope, I have come across this a number of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_...
mynameishere 14y ago
People always ask this incorrectly. The real question is "To what degree does genetics determine the difference of average IQs between groups." The link between genetics and IQ is near 100% in an absolute sense, as tapeworms and dogs generally will score a 0 on any test. Even the worst possible environment...say, repeated concussions to the head via a hammer, will still result in a human scoring far above any non-human.
- yesbabyyes 14y ago
  Even the worst possible environment...say, repeated concussions to the head via a hammer, will still result in a human scoring far above any non-human. I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I think research suggests that dolphins, parrots, bonobos and some other animals have tested higher than humans.
  - leoedin 14y ago
    At standard IQ tests? Surely the creature doing a a standard IQ test needs at the very least opposable thumbs? There will of course be exceptions, but a brain damaged but somewhat functioning human will always score better than a non-human at human-designed intelligence tests. The argument isn't that a dolphin or bonobo isn't potentially smarter than a brain damaged human, but that by designing our tests for human use we are explicitly excluding non humans.
    - aqme28 14y ago
      What are you trying to point out? That IQ tests as they are written for humans are biased in favor of humans? Intelligence between humans and animals can (or could) be compared, but--like when testing between human populations--you wouldn't use a test that is so heavily biased against one of the groups that they can't even attempt it.
streptomycin 14y ago
It says a lot about it. For instance: "She examined the IQs of Black and mixed- race children averaging 8.5 years of age who were adopted by middle-class families who were either Black or White. The children who were of half-European origin had virtually the same average IQ as the children who were of exclusively Black origin. Hence European genes were of no advantage to this group of 'Blacks.' Children (both Black and mixed-race) adopted by White families had IQs 13 points higher on average than those adopted by Black families, indicating that there were marked differences in the environments of Black and White families relevant to socialization for IQ; indeed, the differences were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ at the time of the study." It says less about Jews in particular, which I'd guess is because of a lack of data. There's not a heck of a lot of Jews up for adoption, relative to blacks. But it does note: "It is important to note that even at the highest estimates we have of Jewish IQ, Jewish accomplishment exceeds what would be predicted on the basis of IQ alone. Nisbett (2009) has argued that the numbers of Jewish Ivy Leaguers, professors at elite colleges, Supreme Court clerks, and Nobel Prize winners are greater than one would expect even if average Jewish IQ were 115. He has also noted that remarkable as the superior achievement of Jews is, the achievement difference between Jews and non-Jews is far less extreme than differences between groups in many other comparisons that cannot be explained on purely genetic grounds, such as the achievements of the Italians versus the English in the 15th century, of the English versus the Italians after the 18th century, of Arabs versus Europeans in the 8th century, of Europeans versus Arabs after the 14th century, and of New Englanders versus Southerners throughout American history." While it is certainly plausible that there is some big genetic influence on intelligence due to ethnicity, like there is in athletics, we have yet to find convincing evidence of it.
zone411 14y ago
What's important to note here is that, assuming normal distribution, group differences can account for large differences in the number of individuals at the very top (and bottom). If a group A has a mean IQ of 100 and group B has a mean IQ of 110, group B will have four times more individuals with IQ over 130 than group A.

readme 14y ago

>but if I remember correctly I believe that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 3% of the population yet have won 27% of the Nobel prizes in science. Can we get a citation on this?

scott_s 14y ago
"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates Although this need not be explained by genetics. It could just as easily be explained by culture.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  It would be strange to assume uncritically that Nobel prizes were given out in a way which was completely unbiased. For example, it is at least highly plausible that there are biases on the basis of nationality, connections, school background and other things which have nothing to do with merit, ethnicity OR culture as such. So it seems strange to me to suggest that it must be some aspect of Jewishness that determines this difference.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    I'm actually not assuming that - I tried to write something to that effect, but I wasn't pleased with what I wrote. Take my comment with the pre-condition that if we're going to assume it has something to do with Jews themselves, it need not be attributed to genetics.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Absolutely understood, and I apologize if that came across as a sharp rebuttal.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  @slurgfest Oh, I don't think anyone doubts that. The question we are discussing is: to what extent does their innate genetics (categories of similar DNA, if you prefer) influence their intelligence?
psykotic 14y ago
Page 3 of Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence: "During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions." http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub....

praptak 14y ago

Both scientific and athletic achievements have an alternative explanation: culture. If there was a good sample of adopted children from a group with such achievements, one could examine these hypotheses in more detail.

Xcelerate 14y ago
Right, but my question is for only the genetic effects (even with adopted children of different cultures there will be other differences that are not genetic). It would be difficult to determine, but there are enough statistical techniques that one could get a good idea. Surely different races can't have identical distributions of various "skills" -- the only question is how much they are offset from each other.
jessriedel 14y ago
These kind of studies have been done, and it is my recollection that genetics still appear to have a significant impact. Of course, people can still argue that various sociological effects can explain most of this, like lowered expectations for certain races, etc. Would love to see some cites.
Juniper 14y ago
That's an incredible statistic. If the cause is cultural then it's a wonder there isn't a plethora of books advising on how to raise children the Ashkenazi way. Are there any such books?
- starpilot 14y ago
  Sort of. In achievement-obsessed South Korea, there's wide reverence for judaism and study of the Talmud, despite the country historically being very non-jewish. http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/48771/why-south-koreans-are-love-judaism http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/48771/why-...
- Jach 14y ago
  While not completely the same or as limited in scope, I have come across this a number of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_...

mynameishere 14y ago

People always ask this incorrectly. The real question is "To what degree does genetics determine the difference of average IQs between groups." The link between genetics and IQ is near 100% in an absolute sense, as tapeworms and dogs generally will score a 0 on any test. Even the worst possible environment...say, repeated concussions to the head via a hammer, will still result in a human scoring far above any non-human.

yesbabyyes 14y ago
Even the worst possible environment...say, repeated concussions to the head via a hammer, will still result in a human scoring far above any non-human. I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I think research suggests that dolphins, parrots, bonobos and some other animals have tested higher than humans.
- leoedin 14y ago
  At standard IQ tests? Surely the creature doing a a standard IQ test needs at the very least opposable thumbs? There will of course be exceptions, but a brain damaged but somewhat functioning human will always score better than a non-human at human-designed intelligence tests. The argument isn't that a dolphin or bonobo isn't potentially smarter than a brain damaged human, but that by designing our tests for human use we are explicitly excluding non humans.
  - aqme28 14y ago
    What are you trying to point out? That IQ tests as they are written for humans are biased in favor of humans? Intelligence between humans and animals can (or could) be compared, but--like when testing between human populations--you wouldn't use a test that is so heavily biased against one of the groups that they can't even attempt it.

streptomycin 14y ago

It says a lot about it. For instance: "She examined the IQs of Black and mixed- race children averaging 8.5 years of age who were adopted by middle-class families who were either Black or White. The children who were of half-European origin had virtually the same average IQ as the children who were of exclusively Black origin. Hence European genes were of no advantage to this group of 'Blacks.' Children (both Black and mixed-race) adopted by White families had IQs 13 points higher on average than those adopted by Black families, indicating that there were marked differences in the environments of Black and White families relevant to socialization for IQ; indeed, the differences were large enough to account for virtually the entire Black–White gap in IQ at the time of the study." It says less about Jews in particular, which I'd guess is because of a lack of data. There's not a heck of a lot of Jews up for adoption, relative to blacks. But it does note: "It is important to note that even at the highest estimates we have of Jewish IQ, Jewish accomplishment exceeds what would be predicted on the basis of IQ alone. Nisbett (2009) has argued that the numbers of Jewish Ivy Leaguers, professors at elite colleges, Supreme Court clerks, and Nobel Prize winners are greater than one would expect even if average Jewish IQ were 115. He has also noted that remarkable as the superior achievement of Jews is, the achievement difference between Jews and non-Jews is far less extreme than differences between groups in many other comparisons that cannot be explained on purely genetic grounds, such as the achievements of the Italians versus the English in the 15th century, of the English versus the Italians after the 18th century, of Arabs versus Europeans in the 8th century, of Europeans versus Arabs after the 14th century, and of New Englanders versus Southerners throughout American history." While it is certainly plausible that there is some big genetic influence on intelligence due to ethnicity, like there is in athletics, we have yet to find convincing evidence of it.

zone411 14y ago

What's important to note here is that, assuming normal distribution, group differences can account for large differences in the number of individuals at the very top (and bottom). If a group A has a mean IQ of 100 and group B has a mean IQ of 110, group B will have four times more individuals with IQ over 130 than group A.